I'm currently integrating our database with the wonderful openstreetmap.

I've discovered that OSM seems to prefer GPX 1.0 - and also it seems to insist on the GPX including timestamps for all trackpoints.

Does anyone know why this is? Is GPX 1.0 with no time valid?

Thanks

Stuart (runsaturday)

Robert Lipe

... insist on the GPX including timestamps for all trackpoints. ... The rationale for their preference would be best asked of them. We could speculate that

Message 2 of 3
, Mar 14 7:55 AM

0 Attachment

> I've discovered that OSM seems to prefer GPX 1.0 - and also it seems to

insist on the GPX including timestamps for all trackpoints.

>
> Does anyone know why this is?

The rationale for their preference would be best asked of them. We could
speculate that they may be using it to infer locations of stops and average
road speed, for example, but it would be guessing.

> Is GPX 1.0 with no time valid?

Yes, time is optional in all places in GPX.

Mike Collinson

... I am a contributor of a very large number of tracks to OSM and always use GPX 1.1. There is a however a requirement for timestamps for all trackpoints.

Message 3 of 3
, Mar 14 10:17 AM

0 Attachment

At 03:49 PM 14/03/2009, runsaturday wrote:

>Hi All
>
>I'm writing a fun GPS-centred website at the moment - http://www.runsaturday.com
>
>I'm currently integrating our database with the wonderful openstreetmap.
>
>I've discovered that OSM seems to prefer GPX 1.0 - and also it seems to insist on the GPX including timestamps for all trackpoints.
>
>Does anyone know why this is? Is GPX 1.0 with no time valid?

I am a contributor of a very large number of tracks to OSM and always use GPX 1.1. There is a however a requirement for timestamps for all trackpoints. The rationale is that by having timestamps we have a reasonable demonstration that our maps are made from actually field observations rather than from digitisations of other potentially copyrighted sources.